Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

[Nimos]

If my senses make me pick up any given apple and eat it, what difference does it make if I perceive my senses as being neutral or external to me ?

My example with the (A) vs (A) or none of them, exclude your senses in helping you to make a choice. You can not rely on them when deciding what you ought to choose. right?

So your senses doesn't make you do anything, I asked you to pick one, the only sense you have available to you, is your sight so you can see the options, besides that they can't make you choose one over the others, because they can't determine which option is the best one. Because if you perceive your sense as external agents that interfere with or control what choices you end up making, they would arguably control your free will. right?

If you on the other hand think that your senses is part of a closed system being part of you, so not a separate system from your brain or choice making etc. But combined in you as a complete system, which is neutral, you do have free will to randomly choose any of the options I presented to you and hope that it was the best option.

As far as libertarian free will goes, you only have free will if you are not being forced to choose in a given way by anything and that includes your desires and your senses. Influenced ? Sure, no problem. But forced down any given path ? That's contradictory to free will.

In my example, I don't force you to choose anything, you can choose neither of them or any of them. To me it sounds like libertarian free will, assume that ones senses are not part of you when it comes to free will, as they influenced your choice and therefore you have no free will. And to me I would have to conclude that libertarian free will is most likely incorrect then.
Let me give you an example, I love chocolate, I cant deny that. But I hate chocolate with raisins in, because I have tasted it (experienced it) and my senses tell me that I don't like it, so based on that experience Im forced whether I like it or not to choose chocolate without raisins or to remove them before eating it. Its not something I chose to not like, I tasted it and thought that was awful. And if libertarian free will say otherwise it can't be true. So free will as I see it, is given to us when we are first presented with a decision to make, where we have no prior experience. We can draw on some experiences that could relate to a given choice, but in the end we still have to decide what to do based on that limitation.

I picked the first A. I did it randomly because I couldn't figure out what was the best for me. How do you conclude I have used free will ?

But you just said that you didn't really believed it were possible to make a random choice. Yet you did So whether you call it free will or random choice, doesn't really matter. Because if it were none of those, how did you make the choice, what would you call, what you just did then? Again I didn't force you.

Now if we take the example even further and now I tell you what each of them means:

(You get 5 dollars) or (You get 100 dollars) or you get nothing. Now that you have experience with my example and know each option, would you still choose the first (A) or based on this experience choose the second (A).

 

[Nimos]

I consider that a compassionate god would not have created childhood leukemia.

That a caring god would not create tsunami's etc

That a designer god would not have designed microbes and insects to kill his ultimate creation, designed to worship him/her/it

I consider the futility of prayer when i am told "my god listens"

These on their own are evidence of popular (assumed) aspects of gods then i consider the evidence that literally 10s of billions of people have claimed their god exists and that multitude have all failed to provide evidence for the claim.

You dont know my husband, our relationship is built of complete trust. And i mean life on the line trust.

I dont think there is a number small enough to indicate the likelihood of an extrauniversal alien with a kill the universe switch.

All the examples you have stated I agree with and again add them to the list when it comes to decide what is most likely. And it just doesn't seem very convincing to me at least and other atheists

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Certainly, but please allow me to rephrase my point:

Persons are universally assumed to have free will (in jurisprudence in all cultures and at all times) unless they are damaged persons. Unhealthy, damaged persons are thought to move in deterministic ways.

I agree with you on that. It fits with the idea that law and the application of it assumes free will except under certain circumstances. Free will is at the basis of a legal system as an assumption. This neither proves free will nor leads to a rejection of it.

You've told me I need to accept particular science axioms

I have never told you that you need to accept anything. I have pointed out that your objections to the theory and fact of evolution are based on belief that you cannot substantiate and that there is no equivalent rejection of the theory and fact found within science.

Science should be excepted on the basis of sound logical structure of the proposals, hypotheses, laws and theories, evidence and understanding. I taken no action to tell anyone differently than that. The only statements I have made is that belief that is in conflict with science is insufficient--even ridiculous as I have seen it used--to challenge science.

(and I DO accept most science axioms) since they are obvious, prevalent and only rarely challenged, and then by persons with an incomplete understanding.

The only challenge to the theory of evolution that I see on this forum is by people with incomplete understanding. They pretend that their challenge on misunderstanding and belief translates to scientific dissent, but that is not true.

Those qualities apply to free will.

Axioms are not proofs, but I agree that the idea of free will has become axiomatic. While that is evidence, it anecdotal evidence and not the only kind of evidence that supports theories in science. Especially not the one theory that has more support of evidence than any other theory known in science.

Using this comes down to evidence and science are good when they support my personal views and bad when they do not.

 

[Koldo]

My example with the (A) vs (A) or none of them, exclude your senses in helping you to make a choice. You can not rely on them when deciding what you ought to choose. right?

So your senses doesn't make you do anything, I asked you to pick one, the only sense you have available to you, is your sight so you can see the options, besides that they can't make you choose one over the others, because they can't determine which option is the best one. Because if you perceive your sense as external agents that interfere with or control what choices you end up making, they would arguably control your free will. right?

If you on the other hand think that your senses is part of a closed system being part of you, so not a separate system from your brain or choice making etc. But combined in you as a complete system, which is neutral, you do have free will to randomly choose any of the options I presented to you and hope that it was the best option.

How do I have free will if my senses are part of me ?
Can you explain what you mean by that ?

In my example, I don't force you to choose anything, you can choose neither of them or any of them. So me it sounds like libertarian free will, assume that ones senses are not part of you when it comes to free will, as they influenced your choice and therefore you have no free will. And to me I would have to conclude that libertarian free will is most likely incorrect then.
Let me give you an example, I love chocolate, I cant deny that. But I hate chocolate with raisins in, because I have tasted it (experienced it) and my senses tell me that I don't like it, so based on that experience Im forced whether I like it or not to choose chocolate without raisins or to remove them before eating it. Its not something I chose to not like, I tasted it and thought that was awful. And if libertarian free will say otherwise it can't be true. So free will as I see it, is given to us when we are first presented with a decision to make, where we have no prior experience, we can draw on some experiences that could relate to a given choice, but in the end we still have to decide what to do based on that limitation.

Libertarian free will is the regular understanding of what 'free will' means.
It means that you aren't being forced to make a choice in any given way.
Let's take your chocolate with raisins example. Libertarian free will is the understanding that you could, right now, choose to eat it regardless of whether you want to eat it or not.

But you just said that you didn't really believed it were possible to make a random choice. Yet you did

I just decided to go with it for the argument's sake. I truly don't think I have made a completely random choice, but that is quite secondary in my view.

So whether you call it free will or random choice, doesn't really matter. Because if it were none of those, how did you make the choice, what would you call, what you just did then? Again I didn't force you.

Now if we take the example even further and now I tell you what each of them means:

(You get 5 dollars) or (You get 100 dollars) or you get nothing. Now that you have experience with my example and know each option, would you still choose the first (A) or based on this experience choose the second (A).

If a random choice doesn't entail free will, then I don't see how any of this is relevant.
If you can't show that a random choice entails free will then you are not showing there is such a thing as free will at those moments.

Perhaps this will clarify what I am getting at: It is pretty inconsequential whether random choices are another way to make choices if they don't count as free will.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps we use different meanings of free will.

My view is that free will may cause a person to become atheist (or an atheist choose to take up theism) but it has no baring on atheism itself other than ones free will to believe in gods or not. Any attributes one attraches to atheism other than disbelief in gods are personal.

Should one make a choice then afterwards circumstances/evidence can cause them to change their mind.

Some will claim everything is predestined, they are perfectly free to make that claim.

Actually, after reading my post, I think I could have worded it differently. On further review, I can see it can be a little confusing what I was looking for there.

I was not trying to redefine atheism and I think the definition you provided is succinct and to the point. Perhaps the best definition I have seen.

What I wanted to know was whether there was a majority view, by atheists as a group, of free will, one way or the other. Do more atheists hold one view or another? Was this view part of the evidence they used in their decision or a consequence of their reasoning?

I think that most of the atheists I have met have open minds and would not dismiss compelling new evidence. Sorry if any confusion in my writing may have lead you to consider that otherwise.

Probably the simplest expression of my version of free will is will that which arises without cause in the mind. This does appear to approximate what you are describing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Philosophy is not reality.

Should i have eaten the steak or the chicken? I made the choice using fee will

That is one of the basic arguments for free will. I am just raising questions that would be reasonable under that argument.

Keep in mind, I am not championing a particular position here. I come from a position of free will that has been eroding over time and I have other ideas that make me wonder if there is more to it than one side or the other alone.

In essence, what I am doing here is crowd sourcing existing ideas, new ideas and different perspectives to consider in my further deliberation and, perhaps, eventual decision.

Certainly, any determination I make, correct or incorrect, is not going to change the reality of it, but I want to make the best decision I can based on information and logic. Always with the idea that some new information or correction could lead to an altered position. I am not irresolute in my positions, but I am practical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Philosophy is not reality.

Fortunately not, since we can find a philosopher that can support almost any position.

Should i have eaten the steak or the chicken? I made the choice using fee will

I would recommend the steak. It would be my choice. Even knowing that the chicken would be healthier.

I do hope you recognize that one challenge to the argument is that claims that you could have taken the another choice in a group of choices is not evidence, since that choice was not made. No one can know if you would have or would not have been made, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

I raised that question, not to challenge the view so much as to show that idea has been raised as a challenge. I do not know if it holds up as a challenge.

 

[Willamena]

Too embarrassing to admit to?

.

You're free to assume.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, after reading my post, I think I could have worded it differently. On further review, I can see it can be a little confusing what I was looking for there.

I was not trying to redefine atheism and I think the definition you provided is succinct and to the point. Perhaps the best definition I have seen.

What I wanted to know was whether there was a majority view, by atheists as a group, of free will, one way or the other. Do more atheists hold one view or another? Was this view part of the evidence they used in their decision or a consequence of their reasoning?

I think that most of the atheists I have met have open minds and would not dismiss compelling new evidence. Sorry if any confusion in my writing may have lead you to consider that otherwise.

Probably the simplest expression of my version of free will is will that which arises without cause in the mind. This does appear to approximate what you are describing.

One thing about atheists... Every one is unique, just like everyone else.

They all have their own reasons, i guess the main one being the total lack of evidence for any gods existence.

And, atheists being an unorganised group, there is little chance of finding out what their views are, other than the only one that counts for owning the label "atheist"

Free will is the freedom to choose as one finds most suitable. I would think people make choices based on available criteria.

 

[We Never Know]

Fortunately not, since we can find a philosopher that can support almost any position.

I would recommend the steak. It would be my choice. Even knowing that the chicken would be healthier.

I do hope you recognize that one challenge to the argument is that claims that you could have taken the another choice in a group of choices is not evidence, since that choice was not made. No one can know if you would have or would not have been made, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

I raised that question, not to challenge the view so much as to show that idea has been raised as a challenge. I do not know if it holds up as a challenge.

"I do hope you recognize that one challenge to the argument is that claims that you could have taken the another choice in a group of choices is not evidence, since that choice was not made."

I'm not clear on what you mean there.

I agree any choice could have been made and some choices weren't chosen. However a free choice was made and it was the choice that was chosen/wanted over the others.

 

[ChristineM]

Fortunately not, since we can find a philosopher that can support almost any position.

I would recommend the steak. It would be my choice. Even knowing that the chicken would be healthier.

I do hope you recognize that one challenge to the argument is that claims that you could have taken the another choice in a group of choices is not evidence, since that choice was not made. No one can know if you would have or would not have been made, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

I raised that question, not to challenge the view so much as to show that idea has been raised as a challenge. I do not know if it holds up as a challenge.

One the choice was freely msde the rejected option becomes an irrelevance

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At present, what seems to be quite established in science is:

1) Time flow is an illusion. It is very plausible that the whole Universe, including its past and future, are laid out on an eternal 4-dimensional surface. In that case, not only our past still exists, but our future already exists, so to speak. That is the block universe view of reality, in which time flows disappear. Recent theories in quantum gravity seem to go in the same direction of eliminating time

2) The physical information of the Universe is constant. Susskind calls this the "-1" principle, because it is more fundamental than all others. Including the 2nd principle. The principle entails determinism in both direction of time. What it says is, basically, that whatever happens to the Universe in the future, was already determined in then past, and vice-versa, our present can only come from one determined past. So, for instance, if I see a ball and try to make up my mind whether to kick it or not, the final position of that ball is already entailed by the state of the universe millions of years before my existence.

Of course both 1) and 2) are compatible. An eternal laid down history of the Universe entails that it cannot be changed.

So, if that is true, real free will is an illusion. As stubborn as the illusion that time flows.

However, even under this regime, it is possible to make some sense of it, in the same way we seem to be able to make sense of the flow of time. Both ultimate illusions, but yet good enough to allow, and even promote, the survival of our genes (for instance by enabling concepts like accountability).

Ciao

- viole

Thank you for the information. I cannot even pretend to understand the detail at that level of physics, but I appreciate your summaries and think they will be useful to me.

So, even if time and free will are illusions, they enable us to operate under the assumption of free will and for life to derive and survive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One the choice was freely msde the rejected option becomes an irrelevance

That is the answer I have Now, I must determine if that holds up.

Is it a lack of evidence or not looking at the right evidence? Is not choosing also evidence? Is it enough evidence to show that free will is in operation?

As always, I learn something from you. Tell your husband that envy of him is international.

 

[Nimos]

How do I have free will if my senses are part of me ?
Can you explain what you mean by that ?

I think we might talk pass each other here So lets try something else.

What do you understand by free will?

Libertarian free will is the regular understanding of what 'free will' means.
It means that you aren't being forced to make a choice in any given way.
Let's take your chocolate with raisins example. Libertarian free will is the understanding that you could, right now, choose to eat it regardless of whether you want to eat it or not.

I think it depends on how you look at it, because you could also say that, yes I could "force" my self to eat something I don't like to proof or disproof a point. But I don't think that is really the point, because I can't choose whether I like the taste of chocolate with raisins or not. Nothing prevents me from just eating it, but it wouldn't change the fact that I don't like the taste and therefore have no free will in deciding that. If you look at Jackas-s (Can't write that )and the stuff they do, they decided to do it for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean that it is true in all cases, it depends on how you look at it, I think.

If a random choice doesn't entail free will, then I don't see how any of this is relevant.
If you can't show that a random choice entails free will then you are not showing there is such a thing as free will at those moments.

Perhaps this will clarify what I am getting at: It is pretty inconsequential whether random choices are another way to make choices if they don't count as free will.

I would say that a random choice is free will, as you have no experience when making such choice, that can influence your decision. So I don't think we disagree on this. That is what I find confusing, because you say that you don't think its possible to make a random choice and at the same time say that : If you can't show that a random choice entails free will then you are not showing there is such a thing as free will at those moments. So I get the impression that am arguing against two different views at the same time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"I do hope you recognize that one challenge to the argument is that claims that you could have taken the another choice in a group of choices is not evidence, since that choice was not made."

I'm not clear on what you mean there.

I agree any choice could have been made and some choices weren't chosen. However a free choice was made and it was the choice that was chosen/wanted over the others.

The idea is that a claim that another choice could have been chosen, does not support anything, since that choice was not made. It amounts to nothing and nothing is not evidence for something and only begs the question it seeks to answer.

What Christine seems to be suggesting and what I have been entertaining, is how much of a nothing is no choice really. There are lots of phenomena that cannot be readily seen, but are still there.

Your final statement assumes free will. What I want to know is if that assumption is correct. In order to do that, I have to try and debunk arguments that support free will. Even arguments that were the bedrock of my previous understanding. If I can. If not, I must determine if that failure is due to sound logic of the argument or my inability to construct a proper test.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We shouldn't be.

But I must say that although I recognize that no one chooses their actions, good or bad, and should not be held accountable for them, for whatever reason this recognition does not carry over into my waking life, and I'm left living the illusion wherein I do hold myself and others responsible. I hold myself and others to be accountable because I can do no differently. I'm at the mercy of a deterministic universe.

.

I may find that to be true as well. I hope not, but I am trying not to have an opinion either way to minimize my own bias. I know. Good luck to me with that. The universe does not appear to have that much mercy to dole out.

 

[We Never Know]

The idea is that a claim that another choice could have been chosen, does not support anything, since that choice was not made. It amounts to nothing and nothing is not evidence for something and only begs the question it seeks to answer.

What Christine seems to be suggesting and what I have been entertaining, is how much of a nothing is no choice really. There are lots of phenomena that cannot be readily seen, but are still there.

Your final statement assumes free will. What I want to know is if that assumption is correct. In order to do that, I have to try and debunk arguments that support free will. Even arguments that were the bedrock of my previous understanding. If I can. If not, I must determine if that failure is due to sound logic of the argument or my inability to construct a proper test.

A proper test to see if free will exists?
Using Christine's example of choosing steak or chicken, if one chooses to eat steak, he also chooses not to eat chicken(the other choice). In reality two choices were made at the same time and they were freely made based upon what the chooser wanted. Next time it might be reversed and the chicken chosen.

What I'm trying to say is the choice was made freely by what the choser wanted, not because they had to pick steak or were expected to pick steak.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good for you. There aren't enough open minds around here.

.

.

I try. I will consider input from others as well as my own in determining how well I have maintained that.

In an aside, I do not think that many people understand what having a closed mind is and cannot distinguish having opinions from a closed mind. One can have opinions--and persistent questions--based on the evidence and hold those strongly and still have an open mind. Many do not seem to recognize and understand that. Rejecting trivial and weak evidence, or previously debunked evidence or ideas that are resurrected, yet again, is not the exercise of a closed mind. Designation based on that view is biased and false. To me, the false conclusion represents the action of a truly closed mind or, at the very least, one that is not being used with serious objectivity.

I get more from people that have reviewed a lot of evidence, seen many failed arguments and ask a lot of questions. These folks may have a lot of opinions, but they are not usually based on trivial reasoning or evidence.

 

[viole]

Thank you for the information. I cannot even pretend to understand the detail at that level of physics, but I appreciate your summaries and think they will be useful to me.

So, even if time and free will are illusions, they enable us to operate under the assumption of free will and for life to derive and survive.

Of course. Don't we use probability theory when we measures our odds in a game of roulette?

We know that roulette is, deep inside, deterministic. However, we have no information about the microlevel in a game of roulette. so that probability is good enough. Even if the process is not probabilistic at all.

In the same way, the fact that access to the states our brains is not accessible. makes things like free will and accountability still worthy of consideration, even if they are just a first level of approximation..

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A proper test to see if free will exists?
Using Christine's example of choosing steak or chicken, if one chooses to eat steak, he also chooses not to eat chicken(the other choice). In reality two choices were made at the same time and they were freely made based upon what the chooser wanted. Next time it might be reversed and the chicken chosen.

What I'm trying to say is the choice was made freely by what the choser wanted, not because they had to pick steak or were expected to pick steak.

I think all that you are doing is reiterating the situation and claims from which the question arises and not really providing an answer to the question. The question appears valid from where I stand, but so does the argument from which it arises. Hence, the conundrum. Is this simple argument for free will sound or does it fall apart. I must try and make it fall apart or accept it borrowing those attempts.